Talk:The Living Daylights

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: British / American inactive .Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

The Living Daylights is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

November 2005 – July 2007

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 28, 2007, compares against the

1. Well written?: Language is clear and easy to understand, GAN would pass here. Please change the Cast section from a bulletted list to some kind of box, see The Terminator for a good example.

N Not required at all, especially if character descriptions exist.

Vikrant Phadkay 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

2. Factually accurate?: The entire Plot section, though interesting, is lacking a single source. Please address this by finding

WP:CIT

, and cut out anything else in that section that is unsourced. Filming section appears short on sources as well.

N Filming will be managed, but never has there been any need of sources for anything that can be seen in the film itself. Keep this in mind the next time you review a film.

Vikrant Phadkay 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

3. Broad in coverage?: Most of the article is complete, however the Reception section is quite short compared to the rest. Can you find more sources to expand this, even just one or two?

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in neutral wording, would pass GAN here.

5. Article stability? Looking back several months I see some minor anon editing, but the talk page (that I just archived to have a permanent link location in the article history box for the previous GAN fail) looks befeft of editing conflicts. Would pass GAN here too.

6. Images?: Passes here, 1

WikiCommons

image and 4 other detailed fair use rationale images.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. —

Essentially, if you can provide sourcing to

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

• Per a question from
  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• • Sourcing is not necessary in plot sections, unless there are no copies of the film itself to view. Films act as their own primary source when it comes to this type of information, as you can easily view the film and say "this didn't happen". So long as there is not any original research in the plot section, like qualifying a character or something, then it's fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • (edit conflict, thanks, Bigs) This is an issue that's come up a few times before, and basically, the plot summary is a recitation of the primary source (film, TV show, etc). That's the implicit sourcing. Some may decry it as original research, but we already summarize content from secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. The way we present it is "original", but there's no personal argument that's being put forth. The most important part of writing plot summaries is to ensure their
    neutral tone. To best address this, editors should independently look at it. Assumptive items like trying to read a character's emotions should be avoided -- basically, just keep to a descriptive outline of the plot. Interpretations can be placed in ensuing sections that cover real-world context, as the plot summaries complement such sections. Hope this helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • • There's not much to be said that Bignole and Erik haven't mentioned. (It probably bears clarifying the point under our style guidelines, however...) Girolamo Savonarola 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

• Thank you all for coming so fast when I asked for another opinion, and per the other GA requirements above I will now pass this article as a GA.
  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

http://www.compleatseanbean.com/mainfeatures-136.html

What's the source for the claim that any of the others did? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Sean Bean from the casting section. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

Is the current revision of the plot section sufficiently concise to remove the (plot) header? Nizamarain 14:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Based on the absence of comment I'm going to remove the plot header. Nizamarain 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Again, I'm late, but I agree; it explains a complex plot with as little faff as possible. Compare with

The Langoliers (not even the book; the TV miniseries!), which does a very good job of bulking out a simple plot with reams upon reams of drivel. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

So, is it smiert shpionam or smert spionam (from this article) or smert shpionam (from this little stub)? The impression I get from SMERSH is that they're all acceptable versions of the original Russian, but which is the standard? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other actors considered for the role of James Bond included; Mel Gibson, Mark Greenstreet, Lambert Wilson, Antony Hamilton, Christopher Lambert, Findlay Light, and Andrew Clarke. I was under the impression Findlay Light was an Australian model who nearly had the role in Dr. No. I've never been able to find anything about him other than a comment by one of the producers that he looked like a young Gregory Peck.Foofbun (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is noteworthy but at the time the film came out the only way to get from Gib to Tangier was the ferry whihtook longer than the running time of the film. Even with the flight it would be difficult to make it from the opening to closing location in under 90 minutes.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Living Daylights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009210203/http://www.klast.net/bond/pb_road.html to http://www.klast.net/bond/pb_road.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518175603/http://www.007magazine.co.uk/articles_archive.htm to http://www.007magazine.co.uk/articles_archive.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not credited in opening title cards

• Kell Tyler as Linda
• Catherine Rabett and Dulice Liecier as Liz and Ava: two CIA agents assisting Felix Leiter.
• Nadim Sawalha as Chief of Security, Tangier
• Alan Tablot as Koskov's KGB Minder
• Carl Rigg as Imposter
• Tony Cyrus as Chief of Snow Leopard Brotherhood
• Atik Mohamed as Achmed
• Michael Moor and Sumar Khan as Kamran's Men
• Ken Sharrock as Jailer
• Peter Porteous as Gasworks Supervisor
• Antony Garrick as Male Secretary Blayden
• Frederick Warder as 004
• Glyn Baker as 002
• Derek Hoxby as Sergeant Stagg
• Bill Weston as Butler, Blayden
• Richard Cubison as Trade Centre Toastmaster
• Heinz Winter as Concierge, Vienne Hotel
• Leslie French as Lavatory Assistant

The end of this article's prose shows this: "The critical consensus on Rotten Tomatoes calls it 'exciting and colorful but occasionally humorless'". Should this be changed to "The film received generally positive reviews, which praised the more serious tone, but received criticism for its lack of humour", or is it already good enough? Blue Jay (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "ally" used so much when "colleague" would be more appropriate in many cases?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think this should be changed to generally positive, considering that it is generally ranked highly in the james bond rankings and in addition recieving better reviews than it had before, going as far as saying it is better than licence to kill, which also recieved praise and is slightly higher than the living daylights. 118.210.43.64 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Metacritic rating indicates "mixed or average reviews". Do you have sources for your claims? DonIago (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Czech language, all female names end with "-ova". Therefore, a name like "Milovy" cannot exist. Apparently British chauvinism and jingoism goes so far that no one cared to check the character list for such an obvious fact. --Reibeisen (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]